What If In America.........?

It became an "in vogue" expression of martyrdom for young Muslims in the U.S. (and/or Canada) to emulate the Islamic suicide bombers so prevalent in Asia and Africa.

What if over the course of a few months we had several London or Madrid type incidents in New York, Chicago, Toronto and Vancouver. Copycat type crimes. No al-queda "connection". Rather, just Allah's youth doing Allah's work by taking out a hundred infidels at a crack. Try to imagine the emotion you'd feel. An epidemic of terror. Brought on, as tradernik says in such "unbigoted" fashion, by the "think baggy jeans and Nikes and 'yo-yo, what's up dawg?'" generation.

How long would it take, (ESPECIALLY if at the same time, International tensions were brewing between the U.S. and let's say Iran) for around 50% of American's to believe we should expel Muslims. And further, if Muslim's refuse to leave they will be imprisoned? Is there anyone here who doesn't think that climate is completely possible if not probable? And would not those of us who could favor such a resolution not feel a moral superiority to Muslim's enabling us to pass such laws? Perhaps we would feel guilty. Horribly so. But wouldn't our primal quest for safety not overwhelm our learned yearning for fair play?

This country has an ugly history of bigotry and racism, as well as the genoice of the Native Americans.

So would this be a shock if this happened?

No, not with people like you living here...

Quote from Pabst:

It became an "in vogue" expression of martyrdom for young Muslims in the U.S. (and/or Canada) to emulate the Islamic suicide bombers so prevalent in Asia and Africa.

What if over the course of a few months we had several London or Madrid type incidents in New York, Chicago, Toronto and Vancouver. Copycat type crimes. No al-queda "connection". Rather, just Allah's youth doing Allah's work by taking out a hundred infidels at a crack. Try to imagine the emotion you'd feel. An epidemic of terror. Brought on, as tradernik says in such "unbigoted" fashion, by the "think baggy jeans and Nikes and 'yo-yo, what's up dawg?'" generation.

How long would it take, (ESPECIALLY if at the same time, International tensions were brewing between the U.S. and let's say Iran) for around 50% of American's to believe we should expel Muslims. And further, if Muslim's refuse to leave they will be imprisoned? Is there anyone here who doesn't think that climate is completely possible if not probable? And would not those of us who could favor such a resolution not feel a moral superiority to Muslim's enabling us to pass such laws? Perhaps we would feel guilty. Horribly so. But wouldn't our primal quest for safety not overwhelm our learned yearning for fair play?

You've hesitated when queried in the past to expound your feelings about your idol FDR's internment of the Japanese. Nor have you ever explained why you idolize a U.S. President who's bombings killed several million European civilians while at the same time LOATHING a present day American President whose war has killed but a fraction of those totals. You're a duplicitous MF aren't you?

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

This country has an ugly history of bigotry and racism, as well as the genoice of the Native Americans.

Some Muslims in the US are starting to get vocal about aiding in anti terrorisim, trying to educate their own people that it would be a good thing to work with the investigative agencies. We can use the WITSEC program for people working against terrorists the same as we do with the mob if necessary.

I doubt that the US would expel people en masse, it is easier to watch them here than all over the world for one thing, and if their own community does not approve of terror then it will be more difficult for them to operate. Besides, with our border control in it's current shape we can't really expel people and keep them out.

We had a zillion bombers running around in the 60's. Whole buildings at Berkeley were blown up because they were doing war related work. The Bank of America was a favorite target, they had upwards of 1000 bombings in a few years time. We got used to news about bombings as I recall. It was disturbing but life pretty much went on.

It became an "in vogue" expression of martyrdom for young Muslims in the U.S. (and/or Canada) to emulate the Islamic suicide bombers so prevalent in Asia and Africa.

What if over the course of a few months we had several London or Madrid type incidents in New York, Chicago, Toronto and Vancouver. Copycat type crimes. No al-queda "connection". Rather, just Allah's youth doing Allah's work by taking out a hundred infidels at a crack. Try to imagine the emotion you'd feel. An epidemic of terror. Brought on, as tradernik says in such "unbigoted" fashion, by the "think baggy jeans and Nikes and 'yo-yo, what's up dawg?'" generation.

How long would it take, (ESPECIALLY if at the same time, International tensions were brewing between the U.S. and let's say Iran) for around 50% of American's to believe we should expel Muslims. And further, if Muslim's refuse to leave they will be imprisoned? Is there anyone here who doesn't think that climate is completely possible if not probable? And would not those of us who could favor such a resolution not feel a moral superiority to Muslim's enabling us to pass such laws? Perhaps we would feel guilty. Horribly so. But wouldn't our primal quest for safety not overwhelm our learned yearning for fair play?

More...

The government can provide for dissimilar treatment of a religious group, if it can show a compelling interest and use of the least restrictive alternative means.

So, if there were a pattern of violence committed by a particular religious sect in the U.S., then the government would be able to advance the compelling interest of protecting the public from physical injury and it would be entitled to use the least restrictive alternative means of dealing with the situation.

If the circumstances were sufficiently adverse, that least restrictive alternative means just might be internment camps.

It certainly happened in WWII, with the Japanese Americans, even though there was no actual evidence of a threat to the People.

As of yet, there is no substantial evidence that a substantial minority of members of the Islamic sect are intent on the violent overthrow of the USA. If such evidence arises, the government will have the legal authority to act, and such actions will not necessarily be unconstitutional.

I can't think of a handful of fatal bombings during the "days of rage', none causing more than several fatalities. (Madison for one and in Greenwich Village where a few radicals accidently killed themselves). Certainly America has never been victimized by widespread civilian casualties. For example the infamous 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago failed to result in a single death. I suppose the race riots of the 60's would be close but those failed to effect people outside of the ghetto's.

Even if the Viet Nam radicals had successfully terrorized a nation, what could be done? Arrest every white and in many cases, female (Dohrn etal) college student? We did see a mini-reaction at both Kent State and Jackson State. Four dead in O-hio......

Quote from maxpi:

Some Muslims in the US are starting to get vocal about aiding in anti terrorisim, trying to educate their own people that it would be a good thing to work with the investigative agencies. We can use the WITSEC program for people working against terrorists the same as we do with the mob if necessary.

I doubt that the US would expel people en masse, it is easier to watch them here than all over the world for one thing, and if their own community does not approve of terror then it will be more difficult for them to operate. Besides, with our border control in it's current shape we can't really expel people and keep them out.

We had a zillion bombers running around in the 60's. Whole buildings at Berkeley were blown up because they were doing war related work. The Bank of America was a favorite target, they had upwards of 1000 bombings in a few years time. We got used to news about bombings as I recall. It was disturbing but life pretty much went on.

The government can provide for dissimilar treatment of a religious group, if it can show a compelling interest and use of the least restrictive alternative means.

So, if there were a pattern of violence committed by a particular religious sect in the U.S., then the government would be able to advance the compelling interest of protecting the public from physical injury and it would be entitled to use the least restrictive alternative means of dealing with the situation.

If the circumstances were sufficiently adverse, that least restrictive alternative means just might be internment camps.

It certainly happened in WWII, with the Japanese Americans, even though there was no actual evidence of a threat to the People.

As of yet, there is no substantial evidence that a substantial minority of members of the Islamic sect are intent on the violent overthrow of the USA. If such evidence arises, the government will have the legal authority to act, and such actions will not necessarily be unconstitutional.

More...

All true, John. However I'm not implying that these acts of terror would be a bona fide or even implicit attempt at "overthrow." Just mindless suicide stuff. No political reason per se'. Some kids spray paint gang slogans, some kill in "drive-by's", maybe someday a different culture has fun or eternal redemption by offing your subway car.

All true, John. However I'm not implying that these acts of terror would be a bona fide or even implicit attempt at "overthrow." Just mindless suicide stuff. No political reason per se'. Some kids spray paint gang slogans, some kill in "drive-by's", maybe someday a different culture has fun or eternal redemption by offing your subway car.

More...

Don't think it matters. The issue likely would depend on whether the group is outspoken in their advocating violence, even if that speech is conducted only within the groups holy places.

Obviously, random behavior is random, and not grounds for governmental discrimination of a group. But, if muslim leaders in the U.S. were advocating behavior of the sort that is commonly advocated in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, etc., that would be sufficient, because what those leaders commonly advocate is violence.

I haven't been paying much attention to what U.S. muslim leaders are advocating, so I can't really comment on whether there's any compelling justification for discriminatory action by government.

I can't think of a handful of fatal bombings during the "days of rage', none causing more than several fatalities. (Madison for one and in Greenwich Village where a few radicals accidently killed themselves). Certainly America has never been victimized by widespread civilian casualties. For example the infamous 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago failed to result in a single death. I suppose the race riots of the 60's would be close but those failed to effect people outside of the ghetto's.

Even if the Viet Nam radicals had successfully terrorized a nation, what could be done? Arrest every white and in many cases, female (Dohrn etal) college student? We did see a mini-reaction at both Kent State and Jackson State. Four dead in O-hio......

More...

We got used to terror on that level and I think that we would probably get used to it if it came with casualties. Our goal is to not let terrrorists ruin our way of life or dictate anything to us, probably we would keep a stiff upper lip and keep on keepin' on.

We might rethink our foriegn policies, especially since Marxism is not a threat much any more and we have no real reason to have to dominate every little country with a natural resource and a bent for leftist politics. We could change that any time and not make much of a lifestyle change in the US.